674.103
Variation by agreement; measure of damages; action constituting ordinary care.
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
FL-LEGleg.state.fl.us
JustiaFla. Statutes
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
674.103 Variation by agreement; measure of damages; action constituting ordinary care.—
(1) The effect of the provisions of this chapter may be varied by agreement, but the parties to the agreement cannot disclaim a bank’s responsibility for its lack of good faith or failure to exercise ordinary care or limit the measure of damages for the lack or failure. However, the parties may determine by agreement the standards by which the bank’s responsibility is to be measured if those standards are not manifestly unreasonable.
(2) Federal Reserve regulations and operating circulars, clearinghouse rules, and the like have the effect of agreements under subsection (1), whether or not specifically assented to by all parties interested in items handled.
(3) Action or nonaction approved by this chapter or pursuant to Federal Reserve regulations or operating circulars is the exercise of ordinary care; and, in the absence of special instructions, action or nonaction, consistent with clearinghouse rules and the like or with a general banking usage not disapproved by this chapter is prima facie the exercise of ordinary care.
(4) The specification or approval of certain procedures by this chapter is not disapproval of other procedures that may be reasonable under the circumstances.
(5) The measure of damages for failure to exercise ordinary care in handling an item is the amount of the item reduced by an amount that could not have been realized by the exercise of ordinary care. If there is also bad faith, it includes any other damages the party suffered as a proximate consequence.
History.—s. 1, ch. 65-254; s. 9, ch. 92-82.
Note.—s. 4-103, U.C.C.; supersedes s. 659.33.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 20
cases (3 in the last 5 years), 1978–2025 · leading case: Gathercrest Ltd. v. First American Bank & Trust
Gathercrest Ltd. v. First American Bank & Trust (1985)
“103(1), hereinafter § 674.103]. Western Air & Refrigerataion v.”
Wiand v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. (2015)
“To the extent federal banking statutes such as the Bank Secrecy Act impose duties on banks, those duties extend to the United States, not a bank’s customers. And the Receiver points to no other statutory or administrative source for the claimed duty of care alleged in Count I,…”
Lamm Ex Rel. Ira v. State Street Bank & Trust (2014)
“Lamm points to Fla. Stat. § 674.103 (1), Florida’s version of U.”
Bank of America v. PUTNAL SEED AND GRAIN (2007)
“§ 674.103(1), Fla. Stat. (2002). Section 674.”
SCADIF, S.A. v. First Union National Bank (2002)
“The measure of damages for which a collecting bank is liable if it fails to exercise ordinary care is set forth in section 674.103(5), Florida Statutes: The measure of damages for failure to exercise ordinary care in handling an item is the amount of the item reduced by an…”
Gilbert & Caddy, P.A. v. JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A. (2016)
“See Fla. Stat. Ann. § 674.103 (1); see also Fla.”
Securities Investor Protection Corp. v. Capital City Bank (In Re Meridian Asset Management, Inc.) (2003)
“If it is found there is no duty owed by the Bank to the Meridian investors, a negligence claim cannot be maintained and all corresponding Counts in the Plaintiffs Complaint, in so much as they rely on a duty being established to the investors, will fail.”
Ratner v. Central Nat. Bank of Miami (1982)
“[3] Section 674.103(1) provides in part: The effect of the provisions of this chapter may be varied by agreement except that no agreement can disclaim a bank's responsibility for its own lack of good faith or failure to exercise ordinary care.”
Inviertal Financial Managers, S.A. v. Bank of America, N.A. (2015)
“Fla. Stat. § 674.103 (1). Their UCC claims rely on the idea that BANA’s duty of “ordinary care” encompasses an obligation to make sure that Rosemont had the proper licenses and registrations needed to serve as a registered fund transmitter for appellants.”
First Union Nat. Bank v. First Fla. Bank, NA (1993)
“See § 674.103, Fla. Stat. *1170 (1985). Thus, we are called upon to apply sections 674.”
Great Western Bank v. Steve James Ford, Inc. (1996)
“The distinction is an important one in this case because, if an ordinary care standard applies, Fla.Stat.Ann. § 674.103(5) provides that the only damages recoverable are those that would not have occurred had the bank exercised ordinary care.”
OK Moving & Storage Co. v. EGLIN NATL BANK (1978)
“The bank leans upon the provision of Section 674.103(5) which in part provides: "The measure of damages for failure to exercise ordinary care in handling an item is the amount of the item reduced by an amount which could not have been realized by the use of ordinary care.”
— 674.103(1) — 3 cases
Gathercrest Ltd. v. First American Bank & Trust (1985)
“103(1), hereinafter § 674.103]. Western Air & Refrigerataion v.”
Bank of America v. PUTNAL SEED AND GRAIN (2007)
“§ 674.103(1), Fla. Stat. (2002). Section 674.”
Ratner v. Central Nat. Bank of Miami (1982)
“[3] Section 674.103(1) provides in part: The effect of the provisions of this chapter may be varied by agreement except that no agreement can disclaim a bank's responsibility for its own lack of good faith or failure to exercise ordinary care.”
— 674.103(3) — 1 case
— 674.103(5) — 5 cases
Gathercrest Ltd. v. First American Bank & Trust (1985)
“103(1), hereinafter § 674.103]. Western Air & Refrigerataion v.”
SCADIF, S.A. v. First Union National Bank (2002)
“The measure of damages for which a collecting bank is liable if it fails to exercise ordinary care is set forth in section 674.103(5), Florida Statutes: The measure of damages for failure to exercise ordinary care in handling an item is the amount of the item reduced by an…”
Great Western Bank v. Steve James Ford, Inc. (1996)
“The distinction is an important one in this case because, if an ordinary care standard applies, Fla.Stat.Ann. § 674.103(5) provides that the only damages recoverable are those that would not have occurred had the bank exercised ordinary care.”
OK Moving & Storage Co. v. EGLIN NATL BANK (1978)
“The bank leans upon the provision of Section 674.103(5) which in part provides: "The measure of damages for failure to exercise ordinary care in handling an item is the amount of the item reduced by an amount which could not have been realized by the use of ordinary care.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.